Outscooping the NY Times: Why is the National Media so Slow?

I'm starting a "journalism commentary blog." What I'm entering below is what you can find there.

***

So I was looking at the NY Times Web site, and I found an article about living wills. I couldn't help but chuckle, because I wrote a story about the same thing back in April.

And I thought that I was late on getting the story in.

My biggest qualm with the entire Terri Schiavo coverage is the fact that, in the end, none of the quotes, commentaries and facts reported mattered. Where was the discussion of the Florida surrogacy law? Where was the explanation of why Michael Schiavo was able to gain custody rights over his in-laws? The entire reporting was based around the political battle between the left and the right. And that had nothing to do with the outcome. The judiciary branch did what it was supposed to do. Interpret the law. The whole ordeal was a product of a well settled law regarding who gets to make the decisions for the permanently incapacitated who did not leave any medical directives.

Perhaps this is simply symptomatic of the news coverage today. There's a lot of explanation and punditry about what's right and wrong. That's all nice and fuzzy, but where's the explanation for why things are happening, at the fundamental level? In the end, the whole ordeal was based around the state law. There should never have been any controversy regarding the issue. None of the decisions made by the courts was an action of timidity or judicial activism, as many people charged. The courts interpreted the law correctly, and acted in a way that was in accordance to their constitutional parameters.

In other words, there should not have been any controversy, no hearings, no legislative action.

All of this got lost in the demonizing shouting match of pundits. I place the vast majority of the blame on the broadcast media: the Crossfires, the O'Reilly Factors. But the blame should also go to print media. In the age of interactive and instantaneous news, the newspapers must differentiate themselves through the depth, breadth, and ingenuity of coverage. In this particular case, the newspapers have failed.

For all the talk of the need to evolve and innovate, what's really lacking is content. It doesn't matter what great interactive functions are attached, it doesn't matter how creative the design is, it doesn't matter how fresh the writing style is. In the end, it comes down to how the news is actually reported. It comes down to content.

The print media, especially, needs to gain a sense of urgency and responsibility. The broadcast media, frankly, is ill-suited to report the news. Cable TV networks' business does not come from simply providing information. It comes from being nifty, it comes from cheap talk shows spewing worthless, incendiary and unproductive screamings and condemnations. Broadcast news is for people who want to be entertained.

In the end, the print media needs to be the authoritative source. That is the only way that it will survive. And that is the only way that any semblance of proper dialogue and engagements based on facts will be possible.

And, for christ's sakes, there's so much picking up for the newspapers to do.